On August 29, the program
Everything is a lie
broadcast a small debate on climate change, and the grotesque result unleashed another volatile controversy about who is the authorized voice for the debate.
I firmly affirm that only scientists and, if anything, economists should participate in debates on science.
But television today is not aimed at training or information.
In the television medium, mere communication prevails, and therefore space is given to what they call communicators.
That means that both you and I, who are experts in what we do (and maybe not even that), are going to think that anyone who deceives us is an authoritative voice in theirs.
I unsuccessfully searched for Javier Peña's resume (participant in the controversial debate) to determine if he is an expert.
I didn't find any relevant data beyond the Hope Foundation, so I'm not going to judge whether or not he is an expert.
On the merits of Esperanza Aguirre, Marta Flich and Francisco Hervías I will quote La Veneno: what curriculum does this tarantula have?
These tarantulas, rather.
The next day,
Everything is a lie
rectified interviewing a doctor in Chemical Engineering, and a scientific journalist.
In the media we must not allow there to be a single voice -even if it is the one with which we agree-, but it is required that all the voices in the debate are backed by knowledge and experience.
Enough of filling debates with churrulleros, corrupt politicians, egotistical presenters, professional victims,
mocatrices
,
influencers
,
tiktokers
, and various jerks.
It is desirable that the information be entertaining, but what cannot be is that the information is subject to entertainment.
50% off
Subscribe to continue reading
read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber